This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] tree-cfg.c: Speed up cleanup_tree_cfg().
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 10:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:41:49PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > Kazu Hirata wrote:
> > > I am wondering if we actually need the gcc_assert(). I'll leave it up
> > > to you to decide whether we should keep it.
> > My understanding is that assertions which involve non trivial calculations
> > should be guarded by ENABLE_CHECKING.
> That's exactly what Kazu's patch does:
> + #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
> + if (retval)
> + gcc_assert (!cleanup_control_flow ());
> + #endif
So gcc_assert() isn't a direct replacement for ENABLE_CHECKING? I was
under the impression that the contents of the gcc_assert went away when
you disabled checking...
0 && cond;
or some such thing.
Is this not true sometimes?